BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-12 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1172
AUTHOR: Mendoza
AMENDED: January 26, 2012
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: June 13, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill
NOTE: This bill has been referred to the Committees on
Education and Appropriations. A "do pass" motion
should include referral to the Appropriations
Committee.
SUBJECT : Charter Schools: Petition for establishment.
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes a school district to deny a petition for
the establishment of a charter school if it finds the charter
school would have a negative fiscal impact on the school
district.
BACKGROUND
Existing law, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, provides for
the establishment of charter schools in California for the
purpose, among other things, of improving student learning
and expanding learning experiences for pupils who are
identified as academically low achieving. (Education Code �
47601 et. seq.)
Existing law authorizes anyone to develop, circulate, and
submit a petition to establish a charter school. Current law
requires a governing board to grant a charter unless the
board makes one or more of the following findings: (EC �
47605)
1) The charter school presents an unsound educational
program.
2) The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to
successfully implement the program described in the
petition.
AB 1172
Page 2
3) The petition does not contain the number of required
signatures.
4) The petition does not contain affirmations that the
school will be nonsectarian in its programs and
policies, will not charge tuition, will not
discriminate, and other affirmations, as specified.
5) The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive
descriptions of, among other things, the educational
program and policies and procedures governing school
operations.
6) Existing law requires the superintendent of each school
district to submit to the governing board of the
district, two reports each year on the fiscal condition
of the district. The first report covers the period
ending October 31 and the second report covers the
period ending January 31 of the fiscal year. Governing
boards must certify, in writing, within 45 days of the
close of the reporting period whether the school
district will be able to meet its financial obligations.
a) A negative certification is assigned to a
local educational agency (LEA) when it is
determined that, based upon current projections,
the local educational agency will not meet its
financial obligations for the current and
subsequent fiscal year.
b) A qualified certification is assigned to an
LEA when it is determined that based upon current
projections, the local educational agency may not
meet its financial obligations during the current
year or subsequent two fiscal years. (EC � 42130,
� 42131)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Adds the finding that "the charter school would have a
negative fiscal impact on the school district" to the
findings upon which a school district may base denial of
AB 1172
Page 3
a petition for the establishment of a charter school.
2) Provides that a negative fiscal impact on a school
district may only be established, and is deemed to be
established, if any one of the following conditions is
met:
a) The school district has received a negative
financial certification pursuant to � 42131.
b) The school district has received an emergency
apportionment or loan and is operating under the
oversight of a state administrator or trustee, as
specified.
c) The school district, due to the declining
enrollment of pupils, is in the process of closing
a school that a charter school petition has
identified as the proposed site for its charter
school and has received a qualified financial
certification pursuant to � 42131, or would receive
a qualified certification if the charter school
petition is approved.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill : According to the author's office,
current charter school law unduly restricts a school
board from making a decision that is in the best
interest of all students in the district. The Charter
Schools Act of 1992 originally authorized an LEA or the
State Board of Education to approve a petition for a
charter school. Subsequent legislation (AB 544,
Lempert, Chapter 34, 1992) requires a governing board to
approve a petition for a charter unless it finds
specific substantive failures in the pedagogical and
operational elements of the proposed charter. This bill
adds the finding that the proposed school would have a
negative fiscal impact on the school district. The
author maintains that the current approval process
strongly favors charter school petitioners and does not
adequately consider the fiscal needs of the district.
The author maintains that AB 1172 will enable governing
boards to balance the needs of students who would attend
the charter school with other students in the district.
AB 1172
Page 4
2) Charter schools . Charter schools are public schools
that provide instruction in any combination of grades,
kindergarten through grade 12. Parents, teachers, or
community members may initiate a charter petition, which
is typically presented to and approved by a local school
district governing board. The specific goals and
operating procedures for a charter school are detailed
in the agreement (charter) between the authorizing
entity and the charter developer.
Charter schools are exempt from most laws governing school
districts and schools in order to allow the charter
school the flexibility to innovate and be responsive to
the educational needs of the student population served.
Charter schools are required however, to have
credentialed teachers in core and college preparatory
courses, meet statewide standards, and participate in
state testing programs required for the Academic
Performance Index (API), and consult with parents,
guardians, and teachers regarding the school's programs.
The legislative intent of the Charter Schools Act was to
provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and
community members to establish and maintain schools that
operate independently from a school district structure
that would afford parents and pupils with expanded
educational choices, offer new professional
opportunities for teachers to be responsible for the
learning program at the school site, and create
competition within the public school system to stimulate
continual improvements in all public schools.
While this bill specifies criteria for how negative fiscal
impact would be defined, it does not require a school
district to make a factual finding about the extent of
the negative impact. Conceivably, a district could deny
a charter petition for any negative impact, even a
relatively small one. Opponents argue that allowing
school districts to use fiscal issues as a basis for
denying charter school petitions is counter to the
Legislature's intent for charter schools and shifts the
focus from the educational program to be offered by the
charter school to the fiscal condition of the school
district. The proposal also runs counter to recent
AB 1172
Page 5
legislation that enable parents to choose schools that
best meets their pupil's needs. Opponents argue
authorizing governing boards to deny charters the basis
of the fiscal impact to the district would have the
effect of restricting parental choice.
3) Limits the establishment of charter schools ? As a
result of reduced funding, revenue deferrals, and
declining enrollments, many districts are experiencing
precarious budget conditions. Twice a year, the
California Department of Education (CDE) receives Notice
of Interim Certifications on the financial status of the
state's 1,037 LEAs. According to the CDE, a record
number of LEAs are either in negative or qualified
financial status. There are currently 12 school
districts with a negative certification and 176 school
districts with a qualified certification. Students in
these 188 LEAs represent nearly 42% of students
attending public schools in California. The number of
LEAs with a negative or qualified certification could
increase should budget triggers occur following the
November election.
Charter school proponents argue that this bill could also
give governing boards a basis to deny charter school
renewals, because renewals must include a comprehensive
description of any new requirement of charter schools
enacted into law after the charter was originally
granted or last renewed. California Charter Schools
Association Advocates estimates that up to 436 existing
charter schools could be denied renewal because the
authorizing school district could meet the definition of
negative fiscal impact. It seems unlikely that denying
the renewal of these schools would solve the fiscal
problems of these districts. Should the Committee wish
to pass this bill, staff recommends amendments that
would specify the finding of a negative fiscal impact
would apply only to initial approval of a charter
petition.
4) Related and prior legislation . This bill is similar to
AB 2954 (Liu, 2006), which would have added "negative
fiscal impact" to the reasons a governing board could
deny a charter school petition and required petitions to
describe how the charter school would provide free and
reduced-priced meals to eligible students. That measure
AB 1172
Page 6
was passed by the Senate Education Committee on an 8-2
vote, and subsequently vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger, whose veto message read, in part:
While I understand the plight of school districts
faced with fiscal challenges of declining
enrollment and other management issues, I cannot
condone allowing them to deny parents and students
their rights to petition for the establishment of a
charter school. In essence, this bill would grant
school districts the authority to punish charter
petitioners because of problems caused by their own
fiscal management issues or their unwillingness to
make tough decisions, or both.
In sum, this bill runs counter to the intent of
charter schools, which is to provide parents and
students with other options within the public
school system and to stimulate competition that
improves the quality not only of charter schools,
but of non-charter schools as well.
Other measures relating to the approval and renewal of
charter school petitions include:
SB 1290 (Alquist) requires charter school petitions to
address increases in pupil academic achievement and
requires chartering authorities to consider increases in
academic achievement for all groups of pupils served by
a charter school as the most important factor in the
renewal or revocation of a charter. This bill was
passed by this Committee on an 8-0 vote and is pending
in the Assembly Education Committee.
AB 925 (Lara) requires charter school petitions to
specify personnel policies and procedures.
AB 2032 (Mendoza) requires charter school petitions to
include the full description of the suspension and
expulsion procedures and policies. This bill was held
by the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 86 (Mendoza, 2011) would have expanded signature
requirements for charter school petitions to include
classified employees. This measure was passed by this
AB 1172
Page 7
Committee on a 6-2 vote on June 15, 2011, and
subsequently vetoed by Governor Brown with the following
message:
Charter schools are a small but very important part
of the California public school system. They vary
by size, mission, governing structure and
educational philosophy. Their purpose is to allow
parents, teachers and other interested citizens to
form public schools outside the more detailed
regulatory framework of the regular school system.
They are profoundly difficult to establish and even
more difficult to maintain and grow in excellence.
Having started two myself, I know whereof I speak.
Notwithstanding the important contributions
classified staff make to the operation of a school,
this bill would unnecessarily complicate an already
difficult charter school petition process.
I believe the existing law is tough enough.
AB 1741 (Coto, 2010), would have required charter
schools that expect 15% of their pupil population to be
English learners to meet additional petition
requirements relating to the education of those
students. This bill was heard and passed as amended by
the Senate Education Committee and was subsequently held
in the Senate Rules Committee.
AB 2320 (Swanson, 2010) would have added new
requirements to the charter school petition process,
deletes the authority of a charter school petitioner to
submit a petition to a County Board of Education to
serve pupils that would otherwise be served by the
County Office of Education, and eliminates the ability
of the State Board of Education to approve charter
school petition appeals. This bill was heard by the
Senate Education Committee and failed passage on a 2-3
vote.
SUPPORT
AB 1172
Page 8
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
Buena Park School District
California Federation of Teachers
California School Boards Association
California School Employees Association
California State PTA
California Teachers Association
East Whittier City School District
Little Lake City School District
Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District
Sacramento Coalition to Save Public Education
San Francisco Unified School District
South Whittier School District
United Teachers Los Angeles
Whittier City School District
OPPOSITION
Aplus+ Personalized Learning Network Association
California Charter Schools Association Advocates
Capistrano Connections Academy
Central California Connections Academy
Charter Schools Development Center
Democrats for Education Reform
EdVoice